DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070262817 A1 (Ciccarelli), in view of WO 2013/046726 A1 (Tsuboko) and in further view of US 4,654,884 A (Sakai).
Regarding Claim 1:
A receiving device comprising: a low-noise amplifying unit into which a received signal is input; and a search processing unit that searches for an interfering wave and sets a gain of the low-noise amplifying unit to reduce an effect of the interfering wave (Ciccarelli: Figs. 1-6, a receiver apparatus that comprises LNA, IM3 components, both inside, e.g., 216a, and outside, e.g., 216b frequency bandwidth as in [0038]-[0050] and the amount of degradation, noise figure, is quantified; setting the LNA gain to reduce the effect of detected interfering waves, e.g., [0055]-[0059], "The LNA switch points in the first set may be defined to be lower than the LNA switch points in the second set. This results in the LNA gain being generally lower … when jammers are detected, which improves linearity and allows the wireless device to meet linearity requirements.", where Tsuboko further discloses explicitly reducing LNA gain upon detection of interference to avoid sensitivity degradation, e.g., Description, When the reception power P3 of the interference wave of the adjacent system is larger than the threshold value P4, the control unit 190 … reduces the gain of the low noise amplifier 110 by the calculated gain adjustment amount).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Ciccarelli with explicit gain adjustment calculation upon interference detection as further taught by Tsuboko. The advantage of doing so is to prevent the quality of the received signal from being deteriorated due to interference (Tsuboko: Background).
Ciccarelli does not explicitly teach searching across multiple frequencies for an interfering wave. However, Sakai teaches (Sakai: discloses systematically scanning neighboring frequencies to detect interfering signals,, e.g., Col. 9, Lines 44–68: "the levels of signals from adjacent jamming channels and other channels involved in intermodulation interference are detected by varying the frequency f₀ by Δf (=n·fc, n=1, 2 . . . ) while the signal (of the frequency f₀) from the desired channel is being received";).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Ciccarelli with frequency-scanning approach to identify specific interfering frequencies as further taught by Sakai. The advantage of doing so is to enable a radio receiver with automatic IF-band switching capability (Sakai: Background).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070262817 A1 (Ciccarelli), in view of WO 2013/046726 A1 (Tsuboko) and in further view of US 4,654,884 A (Sakai) and US 20130335146 A1 (Takahashi).
Regarding Claim 2, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 1, wherein when the gain is changed, a gain, at which a sensitivity of a noise figure of the interfering wave and a sensitivity of third intermodulation distortion (IM3) of the interfering wave intersect, is set to the gain of the low-noise amplifying unit (Ciccarelli: [0039]–[0044]: "decreasing the gain of LNA 120 may degrade noise performance. An active device generates thermal noise that degrades signal quality. Since the amount of noise generated by the active device is approximately constant, signal quality degrades as the gain of the active device is lowered and the signal amplitude is decreased. The amount of noise degradation may be quantified by a noise figure (NF)."; "NF_d = SNR_in − SNR_out … SNR_in, SNR_out and NF_d are given in units of dB.", which teaches NF sensitivity as a function of LNA gain, explicitly quantifying the NF degradation trade-off when gain is reduced to suppress interference; "The amplitudes of the IM3 components at 2f₁−f₂ and 2f₂−f₁ are scaled by a₃ as well as g₁g₂² and g₁²g₂, respectively. Hence, a 1 dB increase in the jammer amplitude results in a 3 dB increase in the IM3 components."; and "an X dB increase in the gain of LNA 120 results in an X dB increase in the desired signal and the jammers at the output of LNA 120. This X dB increase in the jammers results in a 3X dB increase in the IM3 components from mixers 124.", which is IM3 sensitivity as a function of LNA gain and interferer amplitude).
Ciccarelli as modified does not teach explicitly on graphical identification of the optimal crossover gain point, as implementing the graphically-identified optimal gain as an algorithmic gain-setting step. However, Takahashi teaches (Takahashi: [0088]–[0090], "FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a relationship between the amount of attenuation of the input amplifier unit 812 and an SN ratio and IIP3 where a desired wave is at −30 dBm."; "when assuming the required IIP3 where the signal level of an interfering wave is at −14 dBm to be +12 dBm, it can be seen that reception becomes possible when the input amplifier unit 812 is attenuated by 16 dB."; and the gain control objective is to operate at the point satisfying both IIP3 and SNR requirements, e.g., [0069], "the variable amplifier unit 12 operates in a state where IIP3 is at a required level regardless of the states of the desired signal level and the interfering signal level.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Ciccarelli as modified with graphical identification of the optimal crossover gain point, as implementing the graphically-identified optimal gain as an algorithmic gain-setting step as further taught by Takahashi. The advantage of doing so is to provide a technology capable of suppressing the intermodulation distortion (Takahashi: [0008]-[0016]).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070262817 A1 (Ciccarelli), in view of WO 2013/046726 A1 (Tsuboko) and in further view of US 4,654,884 A (Sakai), US 20130335146 A1 (Takahashi) and US 20090075610 A1 (Keehr).
Regarding Claim 3, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 2, wherein the receiving device holds a performance table, in which the gain of the low-noise amplifying unit is associated with the noise figure and an intermodulation distortion intercept point (IIP3) at the gain (Ciccarelli: [0068], a look-up table stored in memory holding performance parameters indexed by gain state and channel condition; Takahashi: Description, [0069], "the variable amplifier unit 12 operates in a state where IIP3 is at a required level regardless of the states of the desired signal level and the interfering signal level").
Regarding Claim 4, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 3, wherein the low-noise amplifying unit is fixed to a predetermined gain, a frequency of the received signal is changed, and the interfering wave is detected, and when the interfering wave is detected, the IM3 is calculated using a frequency and a signal strength of the interfering wave (Ciccarelli: [0021], "Within receiver 110, a low noise amplifier (LNA) 120 amplifies a received radio frequency (RF) signal with a discrete gain and provides an amplified RF signal. In an embodiment, LNA 120 has multiple (M) gain states, with each gain state corresponding to a different gain. One of the M gain states is selected as described below.", which indicates that the LNA operates at a discrete, selected gain state during jammer detection; Sakai: Col. 9, Lines 44–68, "the levels of signals from adjacent jamming channels and other channels involved in intermodulation interference are detected by varying the frequency f₀ by Δf (=n·fc, n=1, 2 . . . ) while the signal (of the frequency f₀) from the desired channel is being received"; Col. 10, Lines 16–28, "the controller 28 applies frequency control data FCD to the PLL circuit 30 for receiving the desired frequency f₀ of the selected channel during an interval T₁ … During an interval T₂ after the interval T₁, the controller 28 applies frequency control data FCD to the PLL circuit 30 for receiving the first frequency f₁ of the other channel, and stores in the memory 28a an output signal indicative of the level L₁ received from the level detector circuit 26"; Ciccarelli: [0038]–[0040], "The amplitudes of the IM3 components at 2f₁−f₂ and 2f₂−f₁ are scaled by a₃ as well as g₁g₂² and g₁²g₂, respectively. Hence, a 1 dB increase in the jammer amplitude results in a 3 dB increase in the IM3 components.").
Ciccarelli as modified does not teach explicitly on calculating IM3 from the frequency and power of detected interfering signals. However, Keehr teaches (Keehr: [0074]-[0075], "This block determines 1) the power in each of the M complex bandpass filter outputs 2) if the power in any of the M outputs is high enough to result in appreciable IM3 products and 3) if the power in two of the M outputs are such that IM3 products will be produced in the main path, and if the frequency relationship between the two outputs is such that the IM3 products will fall in the desired signal band.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Ciccarelli as modified with calculating IM3 from the frequency and power of detected interfering signals as further taught by Keehr. The advantage of doing so is to provide efficient and accurate IM3 cancellation in RF receivers (Keehr: Background).
Regarding Claim 5, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 4, wherein a combination of frequencies of interfering waves, each being the interfering wave, at which a value of the IM3 is highest, is specified, and using a signal strength of the specified interfering wave and a value in the performance table, the IM3 is calculated for each of gains each being the gain, denoted in the performance table (Sakai: Col. 5, Lines 1–40, "f₀ = 2f₁ − f₂ … when the following inequalities are met: L₁ > k₁·L₀, L₂ > k₂·L₀ … then a desired signal is subjected to jamming by intermodulation interference."; Col. 8, Lines 1–45, "The controller 28 determines whether the following inequality is met: L₁ > k₁·L₀ … If the inequality (9) is met, it is possible that intermodulation interference may be produced by the frequencies f₁, f₂"; Keehr: [0075], "if the power in two of the M outputs are such that IM3 products will be produced in the main path, and if the frequency relationship between the two outputs is such that the IM3 products will fall in the desired signal band"; Takahashi: [0090], "when assuming the required IIP3 where the signal level of an interfering wave is at −14 dBm to be +12 dBm, it can be seen that reception becomes possible when the input amplifier unit 812 is attenuated by 16 dB.").
Regarding Claim 6, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 5, wherein for each of the gains denoted in the performance table, a greater of the sensitivity of the noise figure and the sensitivity of the IM3 is selected, a gain that changes the sensitivity of the noise figure to the sensitivity of the IM3 is determined, and the gain determined is set to the gain of the low-noise amplifying unit (Takahashi: [0088]–[0091], "FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a relationship between the amount of attenuation of the input amplifier unit 812 and an SN ratio and IIP3 where a desired wave is at −30 dBm. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a relationship between the amount of attenuation of the input amplifier unit 812 and an SN ratio and IIP3 where a desired wave is at −14 dBm."; Figs. 8-9, at low attenuation (high gain), IIP3/IM3 sensitivity is the binding constraint; at high attenuation (low gain), NF sensitivity becomes dominant; "when assuming the required IIP3 where the signal level of an interfering wave is at −14 dBm to be +12 dBm, it can be seen that reception becomes possible when the input amplifier unit 812 is attenuated by 16 dB.", where 16 dB attenuation value is the crossover gain — where the IM3 sensitivity and NF sensitivity curves intersect and the dominant constraint switches; Ciccarelli: [0068], "A gain state selector 540 receives the LNA switch points from selector 536 and the received signal level from signal detector 532. Selector 540 compares the received signal level against the LNA switch points and selects a gain state for LNA 120 based on the comparison results.").
Regarding Claim 7, Ciccarelli as modified further teaches:
The receiving device according to claim 1, wherein the gain is set by the search processing unit at a point in time before receiving a signal from a base station (Ciccarelli: [0065]–[0066], "A comparator (Comp) 520 compares the filtered signal against a jammer threshold, V_th, and provides a jammer indicator signal. … The jammer indicators from all jammer detectors may be used to select the switch points, gain, and/or bias of the LNA.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHITONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1936. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHITONG CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights